Vedic myth and genetic reality

“The Myth of The Aryan Invasions of India” is a short booklet written by David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri), an American Hindu teacher. His books on Ayurveda and Jyotish are probably more well known than his works on Indian history. Readers of Graham Hancock's books may have noted that Hancock quotes Frawley as an authority on Vedic culture.

Apparently, right-wing Hindu nationalists deny that the Indo-Aryans originally came from Central Asia, instead arguing that they are indigenous to India. To promote Hindu unity, they also downplay the differences between the Aryans and the Dravidians, arguing that both are natives to the Indian sub-continent and have a common origin. Finally, they promote the idea that India was the original cradle of the Indo-Europeans, indeed of civilization itself, since this is what a traditional interpretation of the Hindu scriptures seems to suggest. Frawley's perspective is similar (with a few twists).

Frawley argues that the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), usually seen as Dravidian or at least non-Aryan, was really Aryan. Or rather Vedic, since Frawley doesn't really like the term “Aryan” when used as an ethnic designation. The IVC never really disappeared, but simply transformed itself into later Iron Age cultures. The main reason was climate change which dried up the great Saraswati river and forced the IVC's to relocate further east, on the Ganges plains. In Frawley's scenario, the Rig Veda was written *before* the IVC, while the IVC itself corresponds to the Yajur and Atharva Vedas. The wars mentioned in the Vedas are not conflicts between Aryans and non-Aryans, but rather between different IVC kingdoms, all of which were Vedic. Frawley believes that three such kingdoms existed. Cultural influence and migrations went from India to the north and west, not the other way around. The cultures of the Middle East were derived from that of India, indeed some Mideast kingdoms were Indo-Aryan. The various Indo-European peoples in Europe represent a northern off-shoot of Vedic culture.

Frawley doesn't seem to believe that ancient Indian culture was “Indo-Aryan” in the strictest sense. Rather, it was multi-ethnic. The author leaves room for both Indo-Aryans, Dravidians and Mundas in his scenario. Sanskrit was the language of the religious and scribal elite, while the common people may very well have spoken other languages, perhaps Dravidian ones. Frawley also believes that Indo-European and Dravidian languages have a common ancestry, and that the corresponding populations represent the same “racial” type, more specifically the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid “race”.

The author's most peculiar twist is his stated belief that Vedic civilization didn't originally come from the Indian sub-continent. Rather, it originated further east, in Southeast Asia. Frawley believes in Stephen Oppenheimer's thesis that an advanced founder culture flourished in Sundaland, a landmass that disappeared under the sea at the end of the last Ice Age. Sundaland connected the Malay Peninsula with Sumatra, Borneo and Java. Oppenheimer regards Sundaland as the original homeland of Austronesians and Austroasians, while Frawley (unless I've misunderstood him) consider it the homeland of Indo-Europeans and Dravidians, too! It's not entirely clear why Frawley takes this turn. Perhaps it's a “new agey” trait, since Sundaland is situated approximately where Lemuria or Mu are supposed to have been. Perhaps it's a tie-in to Indian legends about sunken continents, such as Kumari Kandam.

I happen to think that Oppenheimer is on to something (maybe something huge), but I'm less certain about Frawley. He simply rejects all linguistic evidence out of hand, presumably because it doesn't square with his claim that India is the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans. His description of the IVC makes no sense. The IVC was a peaceful culture, whereas the Vedas mention devastating wars. The script of the IVC has never been deciphered, but certainly doesn't look like Sanskrit. Genetic evidence also seems to point to foreign migration to India. The genetic marker M20, which originated 30,000 years ago, is found in southern Indians and is therefore considered a "Dravidian" marker, while M17 (which originated 10,000 years ago in Eastern Europe) is found among Indo-European speakers all over the sub-continent. This is powerful evidence in favor of an "Aryan" Urheimat in Europe. Apparently, Frawley's interpretation of the Rig Veda is considered somewhat idiosyncratic by other scholars in the field. For instance, he believes that the Rig Veda describes a coastal or oceanic culture. However, the word he translates as “sea” is translated “confluence of rivers” by almost everyone else. Overall, Frawley has a tendency to take Hindu scriptures as his *real* authorities, revealing a slightly fundamentalist mindset.

My provisional guess is that Indian cultures may indeed be much older than hitherto believed, but IVC and Aryan/Vedic cultures really are distinct. IVC was probably Dravidian, and there could have been an earlier influence of “Lemurian” peoples. The Indo-Aryans really came from the North with a different tradition. Perhaps we could call their homeland “Hyperborea” just for the fun of it? That being said, “The Myth of the Aryan Invasions of India” is nevertheless a good summary of the criticism of the Aryan Invasion Model. I therefore give it four stars, despite disagreeing with its conclusions.